|
Post by m1a2abramsman on Sept 25, 2014 23:53:01 GMT -5
I'm looking to buy a plate carrier to use with a set of front, rear, and side AR500 plates and the trauma pads. What's a good one that has the side plate pouches as part of the plate carrier, is under $200 and can be had in both black (for work as an armed security guard in the ghetto) and multicam for when SHTF? I'll be wearing a UW Gear Swampfox Mk3, IFAK, Camelbac, and sometimes the UW Gear bandoleer in addition to level IIIA soft armor underneath. Also, one last thing. I'd like to get one for my wife who is 5'2" and 98 pounds. Do any of these plate carriers come in a small? All I've seen is medium, large and X-Large.
I've worn the Army's Point Blank IOTV for a year in Iraq and it was way too heavy and bulky. I'd like something lighter and much more streamlined. Thanks everyone for your opinioins.
|
|
currahee
New Member
"Stands Alone"
Posts: 151
|
Post by currahee on Sept 26, 2014 20:39:28 GMT -5
What you just described is far more bulky than an IOTV
|
|
|
Post by m1a2abramsman on Sept 26, 2014 21:07:10 GMT -5
How would that be more bulky than an IOTV? And what would you suggest otherwise?
|
|
|
Post by omnivorous on Sept 26, 2014 23:52:53 GMT -5
Yeah, I'm not sure about bulky either, but probably heavier. If you're looking for a small sized plate carrier, check out Beez Combat Systems. If they don't already have small as an option, they'll likely make a custom one for you. www.beezcombatsystems.com/
|
|
currahee
New Member
"Stands Alone"
Posts: 151
|
Post by currahee on Sept 27, 2014 11:09:51 GMT -5
How would that be more bulky than an IOTV? And what would you suggest otherwise? You are talking about wearing 3 to 5 pieces of gear on top of one another vs one that is designed to be one thing all combined. Each set of straps, each layer of nylon equals more bulk. Not to mention, the plates are about 25% heavier than the plates you had in an IOTV. You are gonna have a massive reduction in mobility, speed, agility, flexibility etc. Mathematically lets set the IOTV at 100% bulk lets say.. Slick plate carrier loaded with front, back and side plates = 70% Level IIA vest = 50% Swamp Fox = 20% Camelback = 10% bandoleer = 10% you are up to 160% of the bulk of the IOTV alone because bulk is cumulative. And we're not even talking about weight. If I wanted level three armor under rifle plates I would look for something like an IOTV. If I wanted to be modular, with a soft vest plus rifle plates over I would go for a lightweight carrier (no side plates, with the pouches attached)) over a soft vest.
|
|
|
Post by omnivorous on Sept 27, 2014 12:43:59 GMT -5
To reduce some of that bulk from the straps and whatnot, you could get something like a Tactical Tailor Removable Operator pack, or any of the other similar style packs out there, and clip it on to your Swamp Fox rig and put the hydro bladder and extra mags in there.
Here's a video with a Swamp Fox and an Ares Armor Combat XII pack, just to demonstrate the concept:
|
|
|
Post by m1a2abramsman on Sept 29, 2014 19:24:26 GMT -5
I didnt think of it that way. You brought up some good points. I'm going to have to re-think my setup.
|
|
|
Post by barefootafrican on Oct 7, 2014 22:53:44 GMT -5
The newer Blue force gear plate carriers are the shiznits. Start with the Plate minus. They were just on sale ~$95. They have the light but strong sorted. www.blueforcegear.com/gear/armor-carriersMyself, I am not convinced that body armor is as "essential" in the NW forests, so it's pretty low on my list. In the urban/vehicle situation that equation is very different.
|
|
|
Post by panzer0170 on Oct 8, 2014 10:16:40 GMT -5
The newer Blue force gear plate carriers are the shiznits. Start with the Plate minus. They were just on sale ~$95. They have the light but strong sorted. www.blueforcegear.com/gear/armor-carriersMyself, I am not convinced that body armor is as "essential" in the NW forests, so it's pretty low on my list. In the urban/vehicle situation that equation is very different. I wish I could back my argument up with proper documentation, but I promise I'm not making figures up; nearly the same % of GSW in WW2 were fatal as has been in recent conflicts - body armour on the grand scale has increased protection by %, not by 3-4 fold. I think a valid point is made here (and probably has been elsewhere) static/vehicle? Wear the damned thing, if you can afford. Mobile? All it's going to do is sap your strength, weigh you down, and make you fight worse. To those that say 'get fitter' - Some of the fittest people I've ever met, when fully loaded with a standard infantry setup for AFG, couldn't even break into a gentle double. Granted, they're carrying MASSIVE amounts of weight, but my point is this; Everyone has a % of their bodyweight they can carry, and plates can take you from just under that %, to 10-15% over. That's a massive reduction in capability. For me, you either need a plate carrier set up seperately, or you need a setup that allows you to operate with/without the plate carrier on (Part of the reason I like belt gear!)
|
|
|
Post by Erick on Oct 8, 2014 16:49:55 GMT -5
The newer Blue force gear plate carriers are the shiznits. Start with the Plate minus. They were just on sale ~$95. They have the light but strong sorted. www.blueforcegear.com/gear/armor-carriersMyself, I am not convinced that body armor is as "essential" in the NW forests, so it's pretty low on my list. In the urban/vehicle situation that equation is very different. I wish I could back my argument up with proper documentation, but I promise I'm not making figures up; nearly the same % of GSW in WW2 were fatal as has been in recent conflicts - body armour on the grand scale has increased protection by %, not by 3-4 fold. I think a valid point is made here (and probably has been elsewhere) static/vehicle? Wear the damned thing, if you can afford. Mobile? All it's going to do is sap your strength, weigh you down, and make you fight worse. To those that say 'get fitter' - Some of the fittest people I've ever met, when fully loaded with a standard infantry setup for AFG, couldn't even break into a gentle double. Granted, they're carrying MASSIVE amounts of weight, but my point is this; Everyone has a % of their bodyweight they can carry, and plates can take you from just under that %, to 10-15% over. That's a massive reduction in capability. For me, you either need a plate carrier set up seperately, or you need a setup that allows you to operate with/without the plate carrier on (Part of the reason I like belt gear!) Quoted for truth!!! Well put!
|
|
|
Post by USMC0331 on Oct 8, 2014 17:35:03 GMT -5
To those that say 'get fitter' - Some of the fittest people I've ever met, when fully loaded with a standard infantry setup for AFG, couldn't even break into a gentle double. Granted, they're carrying MASSIVE amounts of weight, but my point is this; Everyone has a % of their bodyweight they can carry, and plates can take you from just under that %, to 10-15% over. That's a massive reduction in capability. For me, you either need a plate carrier set up seperately, or you need a setup that allows you to operate with/without the plate carrier on (Part of the reason I like belt gear!) Sums it up nicely.
|
|
currahee
New Member
"Stands Alone"
Posts: 151
|
Post by currahee on Oct 8, 2014 18:31:36 GMT -5
The newer Blue force gear plate carriers are the shiznits. Start with the Plate minus. They were just on sale ~$95. They have the light but strong sorted. www.blueforcegear.com/gear/armor-carriersMyself, I am not convinced that body armor is as "essential" in the NW forests, so it's pretty low on my list. In the urban/vehicle situation that equation is very different. I wish I could back my argument up with proper documentation, but I promise I'm not making figures up; nearly the same % of GSW in WW2 were fatal as has been in recent conflicts - body armour on the grand scale has increased protection by %, not by 3-4 fold. I think a valid point is made here (and probably has been elsewhere) static/vehicle? Wear the damned thing, if you can afford. Mobile? All it's going to do is sap your strength, weigh you down, and make you fight worse. To those that say 'get fitter' - Some of the fittest people I've ever met, when fully loaded with a standard infantry setup for AFG, couldn't even break into a gentle double. Granted, they're carrying MASSIVE amounts of weight, but my point is this; Everyone has a % of their bodyweight they can carry, and plates can take you from just under that %, to 10-15% over. That's a massive reduction in capability. For me, you either need a plate carrier set up seperately, or you need a setup that allows you to operate with/without the plate carrier on (Part of the reason I like belt gear!) Hence my new light vs heavy second line philosophy. If I'm in a vehicle or semi static I will have my PC on. If I know I'm going in to a fight I will have one on. If I have to travel far or fast its chest rig only. I ensure that my belt gear works the same with PC or CR. No matter how fit you are a PC is gonna slow you down. I train mainly in a PC now just to make the movement more of a challenge. If you CAN'T travel all day in a PC you should be more worried about your fitness than any academic gear discussion on the Internets.
|
|
|
Post by USMC0331 on Oct 8, 2014 18:47:56 GMT -5
I've actually gone to a belt kit only with a PC as an add on for static or vehicle and dropped the CH.
Using the PC as a weight trainer is a good idea, I think I will cut some plates to use instead of my ceramics though for training
|
|
|
Post by Diz on Oct 10, 2014 8:13:11 GMT -5
Some good thoughts here. I like a light, slick plate carrier, w/ Level III steel plates and IIIa soft armor. Throw a Swampfox over that and you're set. The armor is optional, depending on terrain and situation. For static defense, perimeter security, armor on. For more extended patrolling out in the woods, armor off. For long distance patrolling with offensive mission (night ambush, raid, etc) armor in ruck. Jock up for mission, take back off for exfil.
Armor is gonna be a compromise. Full coverage is nice but comes with a hefty weight penalty. I think a slick carrier gives you good pro, front and back. I accept the risk of having no side coverage for added mobility. It's trade off. I like Level III multi hit plates for our sit because it can take a lot of hits and still be functional. Unlike ceramic which may be trashed after one firefight. So unless you have a big stock of spare ceramic, I think steel makes the most sense, overall, for us.
There has been a lot of talk about spall from steel plates. I wrap them, front and back with, cut-down police surplus kevlar. IIIa in back, II in front. You can get this stuff cheap, and it still works great ICW with steel. It's a bitch to cut to plate shape, but can be done with a craft knife a lot of blades. Tape the new edges and drive on.
I will typically carry a bandoleer myself, although I stuff it in the ruck for plusing up the chest rig.
|
|
|
Post by whitebear620 on Jul 4, 2017 16:03:38 GMT -5
Thoughts on the Slickster plate carrier? ferroconcepts.com/products/the-slicksterferroconcepts.com/products/turnover-magazine-pouch-triple-556Looking for a plate carrier that I can keep in the backseat of my car, wear during times of heightened threat to and from work (people can really hate my boss and therefore hate me, but security is decent at work), and wear for SHTF. Need to be able to go slick, but like the option of just slapping a three mag pouch on there if I've had the opportunity to bring something better than my EDC pistol. Also had the idea of keeping a TQ on each side of the elastic cumberbund since the sleeves are already built into it.
|
|